June 15, 2016

The shift, while fiercely opposed by some conservative lawmakers and interest groups, had surprisingly broad support among Republican leaders and women in both parties....

On the other side, there was Ted Cruz:

“The idea that we should forcibly conscript young girls in combat to my mind makes little sense at all,” Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas and the father of two young daughters, said on the Senate floor last week.

After voting against the bill on Tuesday, Mr. Cruz said in a prepared statement: “I could not in good conscience vote to draft our daughters into the military, sending them off to war and forcing them into combat.”

What would it take to reinstate the draft? It's hard to imagine the situation, but if it happened, it would require new legislation, and the question would still arise whether to include women. There's no forcing women into combat yet, and I still find it hard to conceive of, especially in the calamity that would be required to return us to the draft. Whether men fight better than women or not, there is one thing that only women can do, they need to stay out of battle to do it, and I'm picturing a disastrous population culling that would make it more important than ever.

159 comments:

I was and am still opposed to putting women in direct ground combat (Infantry, Special Forces, Armor, Arty and Combat Engineers). That said, I could see a scenario where we'd want to draft women who are doctors, nurses, Logistics Specialists and IT Specialists. It could also be an efficient way to scoop up retired folks who are no longer in the Reserves but are needed as instructors or specialists where age isn't as important as experience.

When the military wants women for specific roles, they'll get all the women they want or need for those roles. There are military women clamoring for combat roles, to advance their careers.

I don't see much success in meeting the requirements for a lot of combat slots among the already highly motivated women in the military yet, from infantry onward, where the requirements include strength. So I'd guess a group of women press-ganged by the draft into the military are even less likely to meet those requirements.

This is more PC nonsense, and it makes as much sense as those spiffy digital camouflage uniforms for the Navy seamen to wear aboard ships.

I will say, once again, that if women want all the rights of men - as they perceive them - then they need to meet all the responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is registering for the draft.

I will then say, as I have said repeatedly, we are stupid to send women into combat. As Ann points out they have another function to serve in the preservation of the species. I liken sending women into combat with eating our seed corn.

People think that WW3 will never happen, but given enough time it will. We may think this is symbolic, but it does matter and will be used in the future.

I don't see this so much as a symbol of gender equality, but in terms of winning whatever war requires the draft. Will drafting women help win that war? Or will it make us more likely to lose?

Do you really think that trying to force women into uniform is going to play well? The government won't be able to do it, so that will look bad, and then when the gov't backs off a lot of people will be resentful that people obligated to fight aren't fighting. That dynamic happened during the Vietnam war.

I don't think we should pass laws that are unlikely to be enforced, and this is one of them.

Whatever the gender symbolism, in terms of military effectiveness and political will to win a war this idea is a bad one.

Women can serve in the volunteer force, and that is something that should continue.

They want equality give them equality. Draft them. That said, you do know that women in some ways make better fighter pilots. Women can stand the G forces better, do not black out when men do. The women that flew military plane in WWII, ferrying them all over the world to battle sites, have just been granted the privilege of being buried in Arlington. About time too. They did dangerous work.

Conscription is just another form of slavery and has no place in a free society. Instead of doubling down by trying to expand the Selective Service requirement, Congress should pass legislation abolishing it.

Hey, fair's fair. And as noted, this is just for selective service which is a simple bureaucratic annoyance, not a real draft.

Besides, anyone drafted who does not meet physical standards or poses some special risk in a combat zone can easily be assigned to say KP duty stateside. I don't think the Army is going to put 90 pound dainties up in the front lines.

"Conscription is just another form of slavery and has no place in a free society. Instead of doubling down by trying to expand the Selective Service requirement, Congress should pass legislation abolishing it."

They like to preserve the illusion of having us "ready" for a draft, but I don't see how it would be much harder to draft people (if it came down to it) without a selective service. Isn't that how we did it in 1940 and 1917?

I agree, Althouse. The draft should be reserved only for when it is absolutely necessary, in which case women of a certain age are of more use at home, replenishing the population. Of course, this fact of nature is related to one of the basic defenses or rationales for polygamy: females in a group are less expendable because, in theory at least, one fertile male can mate with all the fertile females.

This isn't for the military draft. Even the most brain-dead liberals have to understand that. This is all a smokescreen for introducing compulsory national service, which is how future governments might deal with the problems of youth unemployment and an aging population remaining in the workforce.

As someone who was drafted, I can think back about all of those men (like BJ Clinton) who refused to be drafted, and I can assure you, that if we brought the draft back, the vast majority (90+%) of women would refuse to go. Stupid legislation.

Women say they're equal. Equal means that for the next ten wars or 225 years, whichever happens first, it's ONLY women who'll be drafted. To make up for past discrimination and all. Like we do with other forms of discrimination.

"Israel requires mandatory military service for both men and women." There are religious exemptions. But more importantly, Israel has long discovered that putting women into actual combat is a bad idea, because the men do stupid things as a result. They found that the men could not be prevented from making reckless decisions to rescue endangered women. The women are given good training but kept out of combat.

Women in the Infantry. StupidWomen draft eligible, stupid, unless women insist they want to play with the infantry boys, which they have, so welcome to the draft equality pool.

Althouse, though I agree about the womb thing, women can't have it both ways.

There's no forcing women into combat yet,

Of course there is. Sloppy language. Women have been in "combat" since GW1. You let women be truck drivers? That means you make them drive in convoys and convoys get shot up( that's in combat), unless you only let them drive in peacetime, and never deploy them, whole new issue.

What recently has been the topic, is not women in "combat" but rather women assigned into "direct combat" jobs. Infantry, SOF, Armor, and Field Arty. Physically awful, emotionally draining, brutal killing jobs. Women officers and Leftists anti-military types demanded it, and we're gonna see how it works in GW3. (us versus Iran).

What isn't mentioned, except by people like Althouse, in passing, and assuming it never will happen, is forced reassignment of women cooks, and rivers into front line foxholes because of friendly losses. Happened on Guadalcanal on Bloody Ridge. a couple of Battalion XO's had to round up all the cooks and bakers and turn them into infantry to turn back Japanese charges. Happened in the battle of the bulge when all sorts of rear units were cannibalized into infantry. Happened in GW2, where a bunch of combat and combat support units got turned into infantry.

When I was newly commissioned (1975), the Army went through a bunch of "forced reclassifications" where support soldiers were forced into combat career fields. Then of course, there were few women in the support jobs and none in the combat jobs, but now that women can do both sides of the equation, why should they be exempt from the next forced reassignment. They want to be all they can be? good luck with it...

"Conscription is just another form of slavery and has no place in a free society." On the contrary, that is traditionally the only kind of army the United States had. We had a skeleton volunteer Army, a peacetime Navy to handle smaller issues worldwide, and conscription for real emergencies. They had to be real emergencies because no one was going to put up with conscription for anything less. And when we did it, the whole nation was angry at the evil barbarians who forced us to this pass.These days, we have a volunteer army, it's populated by the ruled, never by the elite ruling class - who would never consider letting their own kids join it - and we therefore have no big problem getting into a lot of wars.The draft is the right way to run an army in a free society. It is not slavery. It is a responsibility of citizenship, to be willing to give up your life in society's great need.

@Drill Sgt - Yeah, that's been an issue for a while. I was thinking about the Battle of Bulge where all the REMFs were thrown into the line. Guadalcanal didn't register as much, because the REMFs weren't real REMFs - they were Marines.

AllenS said...As someone who was drafted, I can think back about all of those men (like BJ Clinton) who refused to be drafted, and I can assure you, that if we brought the draft back, the vast majority (90+%) of women would refuse to go.

But why should we be refused the fun of burning our draft cards?

I guess convincing the Draft Board that you're nuts by showing up in panty hose isn't going to work next time around.

LYNNDH said...They want equality give them equality. Draft them. That said, you do know that women in some ways make better fighter pilots. Women can stand the G forces better, do not black out when men do. The women that flew military plane in WWII, ferrying them all over the world to battle sites, have just been granted the privilege of being buried in Arlington.

some quibbles

Women make better general pilots (attention to detail, hand eye coord, less testosterone, etc). They do not make better fighter pilots for a number of physical reasons (lighter weight. light pilots, under 170 pounds are forbidden to fly the new F-35. it snaps their necks on ejection..) (shorter forearms, cant reach the stick in high g turns). (lack of the neck muscles able to support a 90 pound helmet in a tight turn (10 lb helmet @ 9g), less hemoglobin, poorer cardio, etc.

the WASP women vets haven't recently gained the right to be buried in Arlington. Only active dead or retirees can be buried in Arlington (short version :)

Since the WASPs that died on active duty, did it 60 years ago, it's moot.

What was recently gained was the right be in-urned, which is available to a larger group of Vets.

" The draft should be reserved only for when it is absolutely necessary, in which case women of a certain age are of more use at home, replenishing the population. Of course, this fact of nature is related to one of the basic defenses or rationales for polygamy: females in a group are less expendable because, in theory at least, one fertile male can mate with all the fertile females."

Then I think we should not exempt from the draft any women who choose to take birth control or fail to adopt loose morals.

a couple of Battalion XO's had to round up all the cooks and bakers and turn them into infantry to turn back Japanese charges. Happened in the battle of the bulge when all sorts of rear units were cannibalized into infantry. Happened in GW2, where a bunch of combat and combat support units got turned into infantry.

That is a problem, but there are already plenty of women in support roles that will be close enough to the front lines (ie in the theater of operation) to be at risk of ending up in this kind of situation.

Ron Winkleheimer said...As many before me on this thread have stated, you can draft women without putting them into combat.

Even back when there was a draft lots of guys were REMFS.

Though there are more REMF jobs that Infantry jobs, Draftees were over represented in Infantry jobs. why?

Because "draft motivated volunteers" (me) enlisted for REMF jobs with contracts for 3-4 years. Draftees served 2, and were heavily slotted into infantry jobs because, among other things, they had the option, (for a period) of signing up for a longer tour and picking another job :) Ask AllenS. sticks and carrots

The Drill Sgt hits it square in the nuts. And trust me, with the exception of a few feminista career officers who dream of being the first female Chairman of the JCS, surveys CONSISTENTLY reveal that the VAST majority of enlisted types want NO PART of even the possibility of being put thru the direct combat meat-grinder. And the examples of the Battle of the Bulge and Bloody Ridge are almost NEVER thought of by civilians (unless they be mil historians) but are the sort of thing that almost inevitably happens--especially if we get into a really big and nasty conflict with a military peer like Russia or China or even Iran or N. Korea...

There's no way we're going to have a war of mass mobilization that would require a draft. So the only purpose of registration is a not-so-gentle FU telling 18-year-olds that involuntary-servitude to the government is an option should the feds ever decide to exercise it. I'd much rather have the whole system scrapped, but until then, women should certainly get to share in the full joy of being subject to it.

Because "draft motivated volunteers" (me) enlisted for REMF jobs with contracts for 3-4 years. Draftees served 2, and were heavily slotted into infantry jobs because, among other things, they had the option, (for a period) of signing up for a longer tour and picking another job :) Ask AllenS. sticks and carrots

Which seems like a poor way to run an army. The least motivated people are being put into the most hazardous job.

And of course, unit cohesion is non-existent because people are constantly coming and going. You managed to live two years? Congratulations and goodbye. And of course it wasn't really a universal draft. Smart people and those with money could find ways to get exemptions.

surveys CONSISTENTLY reveal that the VAST majority of enlisted types want NO PART of even the possibility of being put thru the direct combat meat-grinder

That's because they aren't idiots. You need women in the modern military the same as they needed them in WWII. There is a lot of stuff that needs to be done that does not involve combat. The statistic I see the most is that it takes 10 support personnel to successfully field one combat soldier.

There is an old saying about the military, amateurs talk about tactics, professionals about logistics.

"I doubt if you will see a draft again. It suits a particular stage of industrialization. But not this one."

Never say never. Events can surprise. Would an American of May of 1914 have even thought of the possibility of a draft in 1917? Who on Earth would the US need to fight that would justify a draft? Get into a European war? Madness!

Whether men fight better than women or not, there is one thing that only women can do, they need to stay out of battle to do it, and I'm picturing a disastrous population culling that would make it more important than ever.

What makes you think women would be willing to become baby factories? The whole point of modern feminism is to give women an excuse not to have kids.

M. Ali refused to be drafted, because of his conscience (and religion) and he a hero. The Left says he is a hero specifically because of his refusal. The same Left says nuns and bakers or those people who defy authorizes to follow their conscience(s) today are vilans...but put that aside. Now the line is that the draft is good and it is important hhat everyone be subject to it.

If "there is one thing that only women can do" might it not become necessary in a sufficiently severe national calamity to draft them to do it? A volunteer army is best - it's when the state needs more troops than are volunteering that a draft is necessary.

"The statistic I see the most is that it takes 10 support personnel to successfully field one combat soldier. "

That's because they use military personnel when they probably don't, or didn't, have to be military.

Curious case - merchant seamen. Hundreds of thousands served, as civilians, much closer to the enemy and danger than most military personnel in support roles. In WWII they had much higher casualty rates too. Some served on civilian-crewed Navy ships. My granduncle (Filipino citizen, only later naturalized) was at Inchon, Wonsan, Hungnam as a merchant seaman on a transport, landing or evacuating troops and refugees. He was in the Military Sealift Command, serving in crews of Naval Auxiliaries, for almost 40 years.

Drafting women doesn't mean they're actually going to fight any more than enlisting means they're going into the infantry. Of course women can and will die in secondary roles, but they die now as civilians.

We're never going to force women into combat. We'll have operational robotic infantry long before any conceivable event our volunteer military can't handle.

Draft abortionists and "planners" to serve in the front-lines. If they can commit elective abortion, and clinical cannibalism, on unprecedented scales, with remarkable efficiency, then they can certainly serve a greater good in the role of self-defense without suffering from PTSD and other psychological inhibitions. Although, an armed enemy will be a new experience for them. #DraftCecile

Robert Heinlein had it that women were probably better pilots, on average, than men. His take on that seems sound: a pilot must have exceptionally fine motor control and multi-tasking ability. These are things we tend to associate, perhaps with sexist bias, with women more than men.

"So they don't REALLY want equality. Just where it's convenient. Just like with the college "rape" accusations."

That's right. And I would remind you that discrimination in the defense of disparate convenience is no vice! And let me remind you also that the pursuit of equality in accusations of rape is not convenient!

As I understand it, the modern army does not want a conscripted military. The weapons systems we use presently are much more advanced than anything we were using in WWII or even Vietnam. It takes years to train a soldier to use them efficiently. Bringing in a bunch of kids who do not want to be there and are out the door in two years serves little purpose. If the war is expected to be a long one, then a draft makes more sense. That would probably be a WWIII scenario.

I do not think that opening up the draft for women is a good idea, but I've been ignored and hectored and and cursed and blamed for things that I had nothing to do with and would have stopped if I knew it was going to happen over and over again. You want it? Good luck.

Bob Ellison said...Robert Heinlein had it that women were probably better pilots, on average, than men.

There is an extension of that quote from Starship Troopers. Women were both considered better pilots and always assigned to crew the troop ships (dropping 25th century Capsule Mobile Infantry (parachutists))

In a mixed ship, the last thing a trooper hears before a drop (maybe the last word he ever hears) is a woman's voice, wishing him luck. If you don't think this is important, you've probably resigned from the human race.

That's because they use military personnel when they probably don't, or didn't, have to be military.

True and a lot of support stuff that used to be mostly military is now outsourced to contractors.

But the historical context was that putting the support people into the military made them subject to military discipline and so you could order them to go to areas they didn't want to go to and they couldn't quit the job.

You know of course that we drafted Doctors in Vietnam? I suspect, that though we will likely never use the draft for infantry again, drafting some specialists, including doctors and nurses might be useful in the future...

"So they don't REALLY want equality. Just where it's convenient. Just like with the college "rape" accusations."I wonder if the Brock Turner case would have attracted as much attention if the digital penetration had been done by a dyke?

Towards the end of WWI the Soviets used female infantry units. As I understand it, they stopped the practice because it was inefficient (they to keep them apart from the male infantrymen), and because it was terrible for moral. The female brigades were made up of volunteers, usually war widows, and the male soldiers didn't like the idea that the women could choose non-combatant roles and they could not.

"There's no forcing women into combat yet, and I still find it hard to conceive of, especially in the calamity that would be required to return us to the draft." Don't worry, it's just phony equality posturing.

I wonder if 99% of today's women could do as I and my shipmates did by working for 16-hours straight loading shells and bombs (Often without machinery) on a ship to be suddenly sent to sea in a national emergency.

I have a hard time understanding how that "other function" for women works with the current emphasis on bodily autonomy and right to birth control and abortion. Will women be conscripted for procreation? Even without war, the birth rate is dipping below replacement and it could become a problem.

Fustigator said...Maybe we should only draft the ugly women. That way if we have to leave some behind for reproduction, at least they can be the hot ones....for the lucky few men that get to impregnate them.

The scene has been done already in one of Ann's fav movies. "Dr Strangelove"

"I have a hard time understanding how that "other function" for women works with the current emphasis on bodily autonomy and right to birth control and abortion. Will women be conscripted for procreation? Even without war, the birth rate is dipping below replacement and it could become a problem.'

If we have to have a draft, the first ones in should be those who dodged the previous draft and went to Canada — the ones to whom Carter gave amnesty in 1977. Next should be those who finagled a 2-S deferment.

I registered dutifully for the draft at 18. Never heard from them again. Moved all around the country. Never a peep. They had no idea where I was or who I was.

Great idea: let's make a list of youngsters who never want to serve. We'll make that list and check it twice. We'll never actually deploy it, mind you. The list is not really there for military porpoises. It's a political device.

And then let's completely fail to keep up that list. Who's where? Where's that 19-year-old young man? Is he in Miami today, studying art, or in Cleveland, digging ditches? Not our problem!

Draft registration is an anti-military political shit-shine. Has nothing to do with men, women, or the defense of the country.

"If we have to have a draft, the first ones in should be those who dodged the previous draft and went to Canada — the ones to whom Carter gave amnesty in 1977. Next should be those who finagled a 2-S deferment."

Because in a situation dire enough to require institution of a draft, what we really need is a military manned by septuagenarians. Because payback is the most important thing.

Believe it or not, there actually are physical differences between men and women (aside from the obvious). Women have about 30% less muscle mass than a similarly sized male. Because their bones don't have to support as much muscle strength, their bones are not as strong. In biology we were taught that the average 50 year old man is as strong as a 20 year old woman, pound for pound.There is some overlap, of course, just as their are between males who are 21 years old and males who are 12 years old. Maybe we should draft 12 year old boys, too?

Registering for the draft in this day and age is downright silly. As has been the case in the past, 18 year-olds receive a letter instructing them as to how to register. If the government can send out letters to our children, then they know where to find them if they are needed.

The only mistake, that I know of, occurred with my dear sister-in-law who received a draft registration notice most likely because her first and middle name is Jerry Sidney.

Besides, anyone drafted who does not meet physical standards or poses some special risk in a combat zone can easily be assigned to say KP duty stateside. I don't think the Army is going to put 90 pound dainties up in the front lines.

That is exactly the problem the Navy faced beginning in the 70s when it opened all ratings to women. A seagoing rate like Machinist Mate, Bosuns Mate and many others could expect to spend 10-12 years aboard ship and 2 years ashore in normal rotation. At that time, Navy ships were scheduled to be at sea or away from homeport, 20 days a month.

So those "cushy" jobs stateside were kind of thin on the ground already.

Then they opened the ratings to women in 72 and the sea-shore rotation got even worse.

And, since the Navy promotes navy wide, mostly based on test scores (given twice a year) women were competing with men for advancement. They shared none of the hardships of being at sea but could make rate alongside the men.

As an example of how hard it could be to advance, there might be 1,000 sailors taking the exam for, say, BM1. Of those, 750 might pass the exam. Of the 750, the Navy might promote 75. Some of these were women. The Navy denied it but some of these were promoted because they were women.

There were a lot of hard feelings about women in seagoing rates in the 70s.

If women are going to serve in the military, they must serve equally. They must get the shit jobs in the shitty locations as well as the cushy KP jobs in the US.

There is a place for women in the military but it is a very limited place.

Brando, it sounds like you don't know much about how the military works.

This is another charade. The Vietnam War killed the draft. The experience with the draft then was such that our country would have to be near collapse to even draft men. In the early years of Vietnam 1965-67), anyone with a pulse was taken. Once they achieved the troop levels, they had too many men with which to cope. Then, they started tightening the standards...for some but not for others. The decisions were made by local draft boards, and thus those with political connections got out and those who didn't went. The rural whites, blue collar whites, and inner city minorities were all hardest hit. The middle class had their college deferments. Then the letters from 'Nam started coming back describing the war as a farce. Then, the troops over there became ripe targets for drug dealers. The crooks in South Vietnam got so good at it, they sold packs of marijuana that were packaged to look like a regular pack of Marlboros.

Of course this idea of drafting women might be a ruse to get more young women to get pregnant. It will be a cold day in hell before the government drafts pregnant women or women with young children. This is all national security theater and many of us are getting really fed up with the useless jerks that hold elective office nowadays.

The effects can be seen in Europe where the birth rate is even lower than in the US. Not enough young people working to pay for all the pensions and social programs. They thought immigrants might help solve the problem but they have, instead, become a bigger problem, with over 50% using welfare support compared to 30 percent of the native population.

Thank God we have these stalwarts to hold the line against liberal social engineering! Drafting women into the military is who we are, and always has been.

What would it take to reinstate the draft? It's hard to imagine the situation, but if it happened, it would require new legislation, and the question would still arise whether to include women. There's no forcing women into combat yet, and I still find it hard to conceive of, especially in the calamity that would be required to return us to the draft.

I dunno. What if the sort of patriotic men who traditionally volunteer for the combat ranks get fed up with putting their lives on the line for a government that thinks they and their kind of the root of all the evil in the world? Or decide in large numbers that a Clown World military was not really the career they were looking for? Washington might feel the need for coercing the newly recalcitrant good ol' boys. Though recruiting more and more heavily among non-citizens would be the likely first move.

I hope no one was foolish enough to think that 'women's rights' was about equality. Something is equal to another thing when they are the same. Feminists don't want women to be treated the way men are treated. They want women to be treated the way men are treated when it is to the woman's advantage.One of the reasons men are more suited to the military than woman are is because they can't get pregnant. You wanna join the military, sister? Fine. You get an IUD when you enlist and it stays in until you are discharged.

...there is one thing that only women can do, they need to stay out of battle to do it, and I'm picturing a disastrous population culling that would make it more important than ever.

Who would "we" be fighting that "we" should care about loss of population? Aren't we assured that anyone who washes up on these shores is "just as American" as anybody already here, no matter how alien their culture and regardless of whether they observed existing immigration law when they came?

If invaders showed up, killed mass numbers of people here, and proceeded to settle down and replenish the conquered, depopulated territory with anchor babies, why wouldn't they be "us"? Why should the child of an invader have any less right to call himself an American than the child of an illegal alien, just because Dad wore a uniform instead of jeans and a t-shirt? We're assured every day that only nativist bigots think the U.S. is anything but an ever-churning abstraction, without roots, without history, without cultural continuity. I'm not seeing the problem.

When I was sworn in as a citizen, I promised "I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law."

All the men of draft age were registered with Selective Service on the spot. Women were waved off, dismissively.

When I finished med school, I was invited to opt in to a registry for military purposes. Told the recruiter to piss off.

AReasonableMan said...So, my man, the Donald, is on board with some commonsense gun controls. Make America Great Again.I know all kinds of people with widely diverging takes on firearm possession. None of them oppose 'commonsense gun controls.'

Sigivald said:"if we can't get people to volunteer to fight, it's probably a bad war."Pay them enough, and you'll get all the volunteers you want, even if it is a bad war.The current issue is that our wars are fought by a subset of population that is demographically dissimilar to the United States as a whole. Ironically, that was true during the Vietnam War draft period as well.

The current issue is that our wars are fought by a subset of population that is demographically dissimilar to the United States as a whole. Ironically, that was true during the Vietnam War draft period as well.

The real problem goes further than that. Not only is the Veteran population increasingly divergent from both the country's elite and its mean, but the veterans are being drawn from the children of veterans.

creation of a self replicating military class is a huge problem long term. it is the antithesis of the draft problem, where the force represents a subset of the people.

Why do the Dems want to push the terrorist watch list or the no-fly list as a criteria for gun possession? Both lists are secret and are compiled using secret criteria. This is supposed to keep terrorists from gaming the system. If you published the list, it wouldn't be as effective (so we are told). The SC won't sit still for it, and civil libertarians on the Left should be appalled as well -- an awful lot of Muslims are going to be on that list, the compilers have suggested that association with certain people who belong to certain groups will get you on the list.The Dems grandstanding this are worse than the Republicans who keep trying to defund Obamacare. They, at least, really want to kill Obamacare. The Dems don't want to single out members of their coalition for extra scrutiny when it comes to buying a gun. Mateen (who was not on the terrorist watch list when he purchased his firearms) was a registered Democrat, fer God's sake.

The only way that you will get modern women breeding en masse is to start actually drafting them.

That depends on which 'modern women' you refer to. There are plenty of young women having babies. Some of them are even married, which is a nice plus. As a woman [albeit past childbearing age] I can attest to a maternal instinct that is very strong. Women are not going to quit 'breeding' any time soon.

AReasonableMan said...Drago said...Be explicit about which "commonsense gun controls" you assert The Donald is in favor of

I'll let you google that, but I will reveal that he is headed to Mordor (NRA headquarters) in order to destroy the ring (of ignorance).

You know that the NRA only has about 4 million members, right? They aren't the repository of pro gun policy.You still haven't told us what you would propose. What reasonable solutions do you want us to know about. Or are you just bullshitting us?

Equality is equality and supposedly what women want. That means registering for the draft at 18 just like the men.As a veteran, I personally don't think women should be in the armed services. However since we are in the age of feminism, let equality be the watchword of the day. Butch up ladies. Another win in the fight for equality is at hand.

After liberal advocacy for "make abortion, not life", and whatever Planned Parenthood does in the privacy of their offices, the rest of their religion is fairly predictable. However, the "draft women" proposal is a symbolic gesture similar to "=" or integrating little girls and confused men in bathrooms, showers, changing rooms, and other formerly safe spaces for children. Well, the latter is uniform, while the former (i.e. equality) is selective. Perhaps evolutionary dysfunction has an insanity exemption.

"These days, we have a volunteer army, it's populated by the ruled, never by the elite ruling class - who would never consider letting their own kids join it - and we therefore have no big problem getting into a lot of wars. The draft is the right way to run an army in a free society."

"We" are, or rather the United States government is, getting into a lot of wars because the central bank monetizes debt of that government and far secondarily because the Republican party has morphed into a war party which solves none of the problems it always and repeatedly claims to set out to solve in its representatives' bids for power. The second quoted sentence asserts that a government threatening young people with violence to coerce them to go out and kill and risk being killed on its behalf like so many units is proper for a free society. It is the opposite, no? It might be an accepted part by many of US society, but it ain't a free one with that imposition, particularly given the United States government's eagerness for war. This is just residual propaganda surrounding US participation in World War II promoted by both major political parties. That action destroyed so much, including a future we will never know, with the US government directing fighting against other governments and top-down sytems it only years earlier tried to emulate and continues to imitate.

Most women do not want equality. Most men do not want equality. Nature abhors equality. They want equal and complementary.

Most of us don't want gender neutrality. But the problem with inequality, per se, is that women's traditional roles have been undervalued and under-rewarded. I was blessed to be able to stay home with the kids until they were of school age but few mothers have that luxury today.

"When I was sworn in as a citizen, I promised "I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law." "

It is interesting that you were made to consent to this coercion as a condition to citizenship. For those of us that plopped out within that jurisdiction, these things are pushed on us by something bullshitty called a "social contract." It is pushed by all manner of folks as if part of the cosmic firmament, but the US action you described in dealing with legal immigrants demonstrates that it does not buy what it is selling. Else, why get your promise or affirmation?

My argument for the draft is as follows: it is "undemocratic" to force free people to serve the government. However, a volunteer army is a mercenary army. History tells us over and over again that countries that rely on mercenaries eventually find the mercs running the show.

Really, JamesB? The Republicans have morphed into a war party? Why don't you tally up all the wars since WW2 and determine what party got us into it? And if you count the mini-wars that Democrats call by other names cause they adore their euphemisms, it gets *really* lopsided. Obama and Clinton both got us into more military actions around the world than Bush II did.

A draft may be inconceivable, but 2 planes being smashed into the World Trade Center would have seemed thus on 9/10/01 too. The nature of disasters that necessitate a draft are usually that they aren't foreseen by the political leadership - sometimes it really is a surprise, other times it's head in the sand denial of lurking dangers.

We have a political and institutional culture of sticking our heads in the sand and denying that certain dangers in the world are actually dangers, meaning it's more likely those dangers are not addressed until matters force it - and as with clothing, where a stitch in time saves nine, so too with armed conflict.

While acknowledging the obvious that only women can get pregnant, our government hasn't shown much evidence lately that it feels bound by biological realities. And given the wonderful state of medical ethics, I wouldn't be surprised if the government extracted eggs from female draftees and sperm from male ones without consent, froze a bunch of embryos, and then either paid other women to bring them to term or developed a way to incubate embryos without needing the women (in television fiction anyway, cows have been used as surrogates in Wisconsin).

My mom enlisted Army at 17, Uncle Sam put her through nursing school. Shipped out as boot Brown bar to Korea '50-'52. Her MASH unit moved with UN forces north of DMZ, got shelled a few times, had NORK infiltrators dressed as refugees toss grenades in camp, Bugged the hell out South when the Chinese surprised UN forces. Saw some awful stuff, especially where NORKs mounted reprisals against locals for collaborating.

Strangely I am in favor of the Military Draft (And ROTC) as it (They) provide a steady flow of citizens who: Have no commitment to Military Thought and a distrust of those who do; Have had basic training in the use of modern weapons (As envisioned by the Founders of our Republic as a counter to possible/probable political tyrants.

Based on my experiences in our Armed Forces and those of my friends who also served, most of today's women lack the upper body strength to perform most military duties, even in many "support" billets---And, thereby are too likely to endanger male members.

I note that most of the "politically correct" Generals/Admirals have lowered physical standards to: Keep their jobs; And, forward Obama's efforts to weaken or destroy the USA.

There is no reason for a draft or even the registration for it. But, if we have it, it should be applied to all genders. In fact, by including females, we've probably ensured we'll never have another draft.

Tom said...There is no reason for a draft or even the registration for it. But, if we have it, it should be applied to all genders. In fact, by including females, we've probably ensured we'll never have another draft.

Were that somehow applied universally, i.e. to our enemies, I'm sure you are correct. But otherwise, it could spell unilateral disarmament. This has long been a leftist goal.

Drill Sgt: In my light infantry battalion in Ramadi, Iraq, 2003-2004, our cooks were assigned infantry jobs. They manned crew served weapons in static positions (as they did on Guadalcanal) and were regular members of our convoy operations, since unlike our 11B were usually already experienced truck drivers. They did very little actual cooking the whole deployment.

A lot of them were former infantry or had a secondary MOS. This was very valuable to us. Female cooks who couldn't pull the charging handle on an M2 or Mk 19 would have been very little use to us except as sentries and radio operators. The men would have had to pull extra duty and extra shifts. Very glad we were an all male unit, other than occasional truck driver attachments and one ambulance driver from regiment. Even then, women were far more prone to heat injuries.

Whatever you do, don't read any history. Then you can sleep good at night in the secure belief that there will never be another world war. Those people in history books? They weren't flesh and blood people like you and me. No sirree! It's all make believe!

Cruz just demonstrates, once again, the qualities that made it difficult for me to vote for him. Not to say I wouldn't have voted for him against Hillary, I would, but Hillary is like one of those shared cards in Texas Hold 'em. Every Republican gets to use it in their hand.

I think it is an emotional thing for me. Being middle class, I spent my college years worrying about being drafted when I graduated, and then being sent to die in a senseless war in the rice paddys of Vietnam, being horribly fought by the (Dem) politicians. Never mnd that the highest casualty rate was my senior year in high school, that Nixon was elected my freshman year, he fought to win the war, and did, really about the time I graduated from college. It was the Dems who really got us into that war, fought it badly, and then later gave away our victory for no really apparent reason (as Obama would do later with Iraq). Nevertheless, the fear of being drafted for an untimely death hung over the males of my generation. Could we get out as COs? Most of us morally could not, and, to this day, consider most who did as close to traitorous. Esp since so many who did managed to skirt the alternate service they had agreed to. I remember long large group discussions freshman year, and an awareness of the draft status of all around you. You had better not flunk out, or your 1A would show up in a couple weeks, and, indeed, I tried to take time off in the middle for maybe a semester, and was back in school within weeks after the school had notified the Selective Service. But the women of my generation did not face this. If they weren't ready for college, if they wanted to do something else, they could. Making things worse, in my view, they were rapidly moving into grad schools and industry, and seemed to have the sort of preferences that we now see with minorities.

For me, drafting women is about basic fairness. Women have all the legal rights as men, but not all the legal responsibilities. This is one example. Another de facto (but typically not de jure) place is in domestic relations. Plus prison terms, and, after prison, the resources put into rehabilitation. Treating women differently made historical sense, because they were essential for perpetuating the species, and we were not, but were, instead, expendable. But having children is now a lifestyle choice.

What I figured back then, when my generation of males was obsessing about dying in Vietnam, was that a good part of the war was because we did have a draft, and it only affected the expendable sex. If the daughters, and not just the sons, were being drafted and killed by a President who had lied so baldly to get reelected, he would have been strung up from the nearest lamp post. It was only the easy availability of the politically cheap cannon fodder of young, often minority and/or poor, males, that allowed that war to be fought, and fought so badly. I don't feel any differently today. If we need the draft, it will be for an existential threat, and drafting women will make sure that it isn't used for anything less than that. Our society showed itself willng to see its unwilling sons come home in caskets in a badly fought discretionary war, but won't put up with seeing its daughters come home that way.

Something else to keep in mind is that you can draft women, but you can't make them fight. You can make the men - as was done in Vietnam, and in earlier wars. We aren't going to send pregnant women to fight, and it is very hard to prevent them from getting pregnant f they want to. Esp of draft aged women. There was a rash of pregnancies as our military deployed for Desert Shield/Storm. Surprise, surprise. A lot of women figuring that they could avoid the unpleasantness of a long deployment in a war zone by spreading their legs and doing what comes naturally.

Bruce said...It was only the easy availability of the politically cheap cannon fodder of young, often minority and/or poor, males, that allowed that war to be fought, and fought so badly.

This has been exaggerated by Black leaders. In fact, during a time period where blacks made up a bit more than 11% of the eligible pop, the black death share of casualties was 12.5%. If you consider that the deferment pool was much whiter, I think you could reason that there had to be a compensating factor that was increasing white losses instead.

My conclusion is that the same factors that are in play now, existed then. Namely that combat unit volunteers (as opposed to draftees) are over represented by white rural and suburban men. I'm guessing that blacks were over represented among draftee combat members, and as we know the squeaky wheel, etc, etc, thus urban legend...

"Don't think it will happen? Hell, they thought WW1 and WW2 would not happen."

Another world war is certainly a dangerous possibility. But...with "the Muslims?"

I don't know if that's more crazy or more stupid, but it's certainly both."The Muslims" are not a nation-state and they have neither massed armed forces nor vast stockpiles of world-threatening military weaponry. There are certainly Muslim nation-states, but you did not identify which of these you think would be our opponents in a world war. (We are certainly waging undeclared war in several Muslim nation-states presently.)

If we enter into a world war with China or Russia, it will be a consequence of our provocations.

Everybody has gotten drawn off point, Althouse included. The question before the Senate is not whether women should be drafted in some vague unknown future when the draft might return for the first time in many decades -- but whether right now, in 2016, under existing law, young women should have to REGISTER for the draft, just as young men have to do.

And of course they should. Given the current state of the law about participation of women in the military, not to mention our current cultural assumptions about gender equality, what possible justification is there for an argument that the burden of registration should be imposed upon young men -- who most likely will never actually be drafted, but nevertheless have to report themselves to the government and allow themselves to be tracked and place themselves at risk of possibly getting drafted someday, all at the cost of being excluded from federal college aid and other benefits if they don't -- but not upon young women?

Some women are already subject to the draft and they didn't even have to register. The Health Care Personell Delivery System (HCPDS) is currently on hold, because it isn't needed, but it can be activated at any time. This special needs draft will look at retired military or anyone under age 44 who have specific medical skills needed by the Armed Forces. There is no registration, they get the information from state licenses, and it is a lottery depending on the numbers needed. A similar thing occurred when the draft was in existence, if you were a medical student or physician, you went into a different pool. My draft lottery number was 335 but my medical pool took 100% of the members.This special needs draft may also include other professions.